strange 44spl testing results....

[Unclenick]

I would think twice about that last load data. 1991 is getting pretty old. The factories making the powders and the exact processes and quality controls have changed since then. Accurate's own data from their first manual (1994) has 44 Special loads for №5, №7, and №9 listed. By the time you get to their third manual, the №9 data is gone. By the time you get to their sixth manual, №7 has disappeared. I think that is the company learning from experience. Neither Hornady nor Hodgdon (the current Accurate distributor) list anything for 44 Special using №7 or №9 now. You want to validate data that age very carefully before relying on it.

[SHR970]

Yes the data is old etc. etc. but it is also being loaded into a rifle rated for 44 Magnum (36kpsi) vs. the 44 Special data (15.5kpsi). There is so much overhead in the pressure department for the OP's purposes that I posted the data AND the source. Previous posts have noted the 44 Special going magnum that it was fair game. Go ahead and run the numbers in QL and tell us how with the St. Marks powder that this data will be into 44 Mag. Pressures.

For what it is worth I have used #7 from Israel (original), Czech, RSA, & St. Marks. The St. Marks has burned differently but it still works within the burn curve for the type. I've not had to significantly adjust my documented loads for this powder.

[Unclenick]

I understand your point, but we don't know №7 and №9 were dropped from the load data for high-pressure issues. It could be a squibbing problem at 44 Special pressures, just like you see with H110/296 underloads leaving a bullet stuck in the barrel, inviting the next round to damage the gun. I'd want to know the manufacturers weren't seeing that sort of issue when they dropped these loads. I'd be using a pressure gun or watching for large velocity swings if I needed to vet them with current lots of powder.

Now, citing 44 Magnum loads with those powders would be just fine. These are operating at higher pressures that make slower powders burn more consistently and that may be why loads are still published for them and not for the Special. I just don't know, so I am urging a bit of caution.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

I understand your point, but we don't know №7 and №9 were dropped from the load data for high-pressure issues. It could be a squibbing problem at 44 Special pressures, just like you see with H110/296 underloads leaving a bullet stuck in the barrel, inviting the next round to damage the gun. I'd want to know the manufacturers weren't seeing that sort of issue when they dropped these loads. I'd be using a pressure gun or watching for large velocity swings if I needed to vet them with current lots of powder.

Now, citing 44 Magnum loads with those powders would be just fine. These are operating at higher pressures that make slower powders burn more consistently and that may be why loads are still published for them and not for the Special. I just don't know, so I am urging a bit of caution.

#7 seems to be an unpopular powder. I'm not sure why based on its placement in the burn rate chart, it should be a great medium burn rate powder.

I have loaded #7 in 9mm. It was too slow with 115g, and a 4in barrel but provided reasonable velocities with 124g bullets, 7.6g, at 1092fps.

I will try and contact Hornady Tuesday and see if they can provide more information as to why it was no longer included in the manuals.

[Shadow9mm]

CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

So I got out to do some more testing today, despite it being 18F out.... re-tested the power pistol with new primers and tested some of the sierra H110 loads

Henry 20in rifle
44spl Starline brass
Hornady 240g XTP
CCI #300 large pistol primers with Power Pistol
Winchester large pistol, marked for standard or magnum loads, with H110
chronograph 3 paces, or approximately 9ft away
5 rounds of each fired, vs 3 last time, 3 was just not enough data

Power Pistol (Note: Max listed charge from my manuals was 7.6)
6.6, AVG 801, SD 28.38, ES 75
7.1, AVG 867, SD 38.68, ES 94
7.6, AVG 939, SD 31.55, ES 73
8.1, AVG 1034, SD 15.37, ES 36

H110
13.4, AVG 712, SD 30.08, ES 67
13.8, AVG 806, SD 16.48, ES 39
14.3, AVG 875, SD 48.93, ES 108
14.8, AVG 921, SD 33.02, ES 93

Over all notes

Power pistol
seems to be performing well in this long barrel. With the first 3 charges there were no pressure signs on the primers. looked like new except for the dimple. With the the 8.1g charge there was some minimal flattening of the primers but noting else. The 8.1g load got me in the velocity range I was looking for and the ES and SD dropped down. With this being a 44mag chambered rifle I am comfortable being touch over max.

H110
was disappointing. With as much powder and the slow burn rate I hoped it would do well in the longer barrel. Primers all looked good. mild flattening with all loads, but that it more typical of the winchester primers in my experience. Almost all the cases were dirty and sooty on the outside, which to me indicates low pressures and a bad burn.

[TX Nimrod]

… Power pistol seems to be performing well in this long barrel. With the first 3 charges there were no pressure signs on the primers. looked like new except for the dimple. With the the 8.1g charge there was some minimal flattening of the primers but noting else. The 8.1g load got me in the velocity range I was looking for and the ES and SD dropped down. With this being a 44mag chambered rifle I am comfortable being touch over max….

First, primer appearance is a bad way to judge pressures. Period. From the Speer Manual:

{Edit to remove copyrighted materials: Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted materials}

Second, Hornady shows a max load of 6.8 grains of PP behind a 240-grain bullet. What do you thing your actual pressure is?

H110 was disappointing. With as much powder and the slow burn rate I hoped it would do well in the longer barrel. Primers all looked good. mild flattening with all loads, but that it more typical of the winchester primers in my experience. Almost all the cases were dirty and sooty on the outside, which to me indicates low pressures and a bad burn.

As others have repeatedy advised you, H110 is totally unsuited for low pressure loads. Again, primer appearance is a poor way to judge pressures.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...g#Post13673133

You come here for advice, and then ignore much of it….




.

[Shadow9mm]

TX Nimrod

First, while primer appearance is indeed poor way to judge, it is also one of the few ways I do have to judge. You have to work with what you have. And this case I was able to see a discernable difference between the first 3 and last load.

Second for 240jhp in 44spl with power pistol
Hornady Max 6.8 Winchester large pistol hornady brass
Alliant 7.6 CCI 300 primer Large Pistol remington brass
Alliant 7.0 federal 150 primer large pistol federal brass

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloade...8&cartridge=32

Alliant uses speer JHP, which in 240g, all have a similar profile and crimp location compared to the hornady XTP. Also I am using starline brass which is not listed in any of the loads listed, and is of equal or better quality than any listed last I checked.

So in regards to my initial load workup, I was and am within published load data. I also put the disclaimer and notes in red on this last batch of testing as I exceeded published data.

Third, as already stated, these are being fired in a 44mag/44spl lever gun. So even if these are a touch over pressure they are still well within the limits of the firearm. I do not have any 44spl chambered pistols to be concerned with mixing the loads, and I do not share my reloads.

Fourth, I expected H110 to perform poorly. That does not mean I can't try it. The load data was for a 5.6in pistol, and I was curious to see how it would perform in a rifle. It was slower than the listed pistol data. While not in a cartridge with optimal pressure, I anticipated it might exceed the listed pistol data with the slower powder in the long barrel, but it was below it, thus I was disappointed.

Lastly, I came to share what I was working on and the odd results I got. I got some advice along the way as usual and as usual most of it was on point. I by no means ignored the advice given, I simply decided I wanted to try something to see what the results were in my specific setup and factored that into my expectations. See the fourth section.

P.S. Don't get yourself in trouble publishing copyrighted photos

[RoyceP]

Many lever action rifles are picky about OAL when it comes to feeding reliably. I would try using some 44 Russian brass and Unique powder in your lever gun for reliability and accuracy.

[Unclenick]

Shadow9mm,

For the safety of others reading this thread, I need to point out your H110 loads were in the range recommended for the 357 Mag case with 170-180-grain bullets. In the 44 Special cases, they are well into the range the factory warns not to reduce loads to with this type of powder for the reason I gave in post #24. A rule of thumb with this powder (and 296, its other name) is any load below about 88% loading density will be at risk. In this instance, with the XTP bullet at a COL of 1.480" (Hodgdon's test COL for it in 44 Special), a minimum safe load of H110 will be about 20 grains. Hodgdon lists 23 grains as the published minimum with 1.600" COL in the 44 Magnum case.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Shadow9mm,

For the safety of others reading this thread, I need to point out your H110 loads were in the range recommended for the 357 Mag case with 170-180-grain bullets. In the 44 Special cases, they are well into the range the factory warns not to reduce loads to with this type of powder for the reason I gave in post #24. A rule of thumb with this powder (and 296, its other name) is any load below about 88% loading density will be at risk. In this instance, with the XTP bullet at a COL of 1.480" (Hodgdon's test COL for it in 44 Special), a minimum safe load of H110 will be about 20 grains. Hodgdon lists 23 grains as the published minimum with 1.600" COL in the 44 Magnum case.

How does one effectively calculate powder volume? Would it based on the case capacity, or on the capacity remaining once the bullet it loaded? I would assume the latter.

When loading I did some basic rough measurements and I had approximately 0.211 to 0.290 remaining between the powder and bullet at start and max.

What do you mean by minimum safe? Is that minimum for an effective burn. Or that there is risk of a squib or detonation?

A friend of mine is running some higher charges in h110, that I believe are below the 20g mark, and has had some case head separations. However thry have only been in his 44 henry. But not in his Blackhawk.

While I agree the loads seem light, I pulled them straight from sierras manual and used the brass. Powder, and primer specifically listed. Only thing different was the bullet, but it was the same weight with a similar profile and crimp location. If it was unsafe why would sierra list it?

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand.

[Unclenick]

The issue is the squibbing problem. The powder was first introduced by Hodgdon as H110 and then a year or two later by Winchester as 296. Both had magnum loads for it and no 44 or 38 Special loads using it. The factor for ignition is loading density, which is the percent of empty space under the seated bullet that the powder takes up in the case. None of Hodgdon's or Winchester's recommended loads has the space filled less than about 88%, and then Hodgdon says you can further reduce the loads by no more than 3%, putting it at actually about 85% loading density as a minimum. With the Hornady XTP seated to 1.480" COL in the 44 Special case, assuming a case water overflow capacity of the case is 36 grains of water, you have about 26 grains of water capacity under the seated bullet, and with the powder density at 0.92 grams/cc, it takes about 20.5 grains of powder to fill 85% of that available space. Below that, the powder distributors seem to get alarmed.

So, I am surprised Sierra has that 60-70% loading density data in their book. You could contact Hodgdon and ask what they think of it. All I know is that it's a level that would concern them in the matter of squibs. I don't think the squibs happen often, so Sierra may have just decided to try it out without considering the issue Hodgdon and Winchester had with it and then just didn't have a problem happen to occur during their testing. The biggest danger, of course, is someone doing fast DA revolver shooting who is working the trigger so quickly their reflexes can't stop them from firing the next shot when they notice one wasn't right. But I've never seen any published information on how frequently the squib issue is thought to happen, so I don't know what the odds are.

[SHR970]

Yawn and I do mean that to "Staff". You missed the ship AND what I was alluding to.

The data that I posted was book AND component aligned; Speer #12also details AA#7 laods for 44 Special. H110 loads are pure garbage. That powder doesn't down load for squat.

Take the top end of #7 as a starting point.....look at 44 mag. Start as your end point.

If you have been into reloading for as many years as you say then you should understand what I am telling you.

[Shadow9mm]

I'm working on it, I'm working on it.... I have to reload at the kitchen table, so I can't always reload when I want to. I also just got finished processing the 1000pcs of once fired I bought, 500 44spl, and 500 44mag. Been busy . Hoping to test some #7 in the next outing or 2. Right now Power pistol is performing exceptionally well. Got 1 more session to do some fine tuning. and hopefully play with some other powders. Going to push CFE pistol some more as well. It seemed like it was trying to burn well up at max.

really need to get QL and learn how to use it. Tried GRT a few years back, I was not impressed. I'm downloading it again, maybe it will work better for me with straight wall stuff.

[Unclenick]

SHR970,

You posted about the pressure overhead room available, but on rereading I see no allusions to any other consideration. My point was that the powders in the old data may have ceased appearing in 44 Special load manual data for reasons having nothing direct to do with the peak pressures normally seen with them. This happens a bit mysteriously at times. For example, Blue Dot was loaded in magnum revolvers without unusual restrictions for decades, and then suddenly Alliant publishes a warning not to use it with 125-grain bullets in 357 Mag and not with any bullet weight in 41 Mag. What happened after decades of it being OK as far as anybody knew? I don't know. I asked their people at the Atlanta NRA annual meeting gun show and they sort of looked uncomfortable and refused to explain and just repeated the warning. Clearly, they'd been instructed not to answer questions about it. Whatever the cause, and as little sense it seems to make to those of us who used the powder successfully in those very applications in the past, I respect their warning because I don't want to rediscover the reason for it on my own. But it also means a lot of previously published book data from Alliant and Lyman and others is now invalid and considered dangerous by Alliant.

So, again, my concern is to suggest caution with old data combinations that the people testing loads for manuals have dropped, unless you learn directly from them that the combinations were dropped for innocuous reasons. If there is any issue that has been uncovered with #7 in 44 Special, the question is, at what load level below 44 Mag does it start to appear? And maybe there's nothing. We can try asking.

We can certainly agree about H110, and Shadow9mm has confirmed it for himself.

[Shadow9mm]

CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

so I just finished my download of gordon's reloading tool. I know its not as good as Quickload, and neither are definite.

I ran the H110 in the simulation as well as the #7 with both powders it gave me a warning "Low burn rate! inconsistent combustion and increased error rate of simulation very likely."


H110
13.4 projected 1161fps at 7889psi, Actual 712fps
13.8 projected 1204fps, at 8450psi, Actual 806
14.3 projected 1228fps, at 9049PSI, Actual 875fps
14.8 projected 1254fps, at 9678 psi, Actual 921fps

#7
8.0 projected 2052fps at 6082 psi
8.2 projected 1064fps at 6317psi
8.7 projected 1093fps at 6932psi
9.2 projected 1124fps at 7623psi

for #7 it states that at 7.0g the charge is too small and at 12.5 is states I am close to max working pressure at a projected 13704psi

I also ran this against my power pistol testing.

Power Pistol
6.6 Projected 1068fps @ 8224psi / Actual 801fps
7.1 Projected 1107fps @ 9288psi / Actual 867fps
7.6 Projected 1148fps @ 10441psi / Actual 939fps
8.1 Projected 1191fps @ 11683psi / Actual 1034fps


to me this again highlights why I generally do no use this software.

[P Flados]

CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

I ran QUickload with the option set for finding loads that would get 1050 fps. You did not list OAL, so I left this value at the program default

Cartridge          : .44 S&W Special (SAAMI)
Bullet             : .430, 240, Hornady HP/XTP 44200
Useable Case Capaci: 27.101 grain H2O = 1.760 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.615 inch = 41.02 mm
Barrel Length      : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm

Predicted Data for Indicated Charges of the Following Powders.
Matching Muzzle Velocity: 1000 fps or 304 m/s
These calculations refer to your specified settings in QuickLOAD 'Cartridge Dimensions' window.
C A U T I O N : any load listed can result in a powder charge that falls below minimum suggested
loads or exceeds maximum suggested loads as presented in current handloading manuals. Understand
that all of the listed powders can be unsuitable for the given combination of cartridge, bullet
and gun. Actual load order can vary, depending upon lot-to-lot powder and component variations.
USE ONLY FOR COMPARISON !

13 loads produced a Loading Ratio below user-defined minimum of 33%. These powders have been skipped.
Powder type          Filling/Loading Ratio  Charge    Charge   Vel. Prop.Burnt P max  P muzz  B_Time
                                      %     Grains    Gramm   fps     %       psi     psi    ms
---------------------------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate 4100                       50.5     13.0     0.84    1050    69.1     8920    1031   2.357
Alliant HERCO                       43.5      6.8     0.44    1050   100.0    10463     786   2.274
Maxam CSB 4                         42.5      6.0     0.39    1050   100.0    15555     577   2.078  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Maxam CSB 3                         42.9      6.2     0.40    1050   100.0    14621     589   2.099  ! Near Maximum !
Maxam CSB 5                         43.2      5.9     0.38    1050   100.0    18048     551   2.020  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Accurate No.9                       41.7     11.0     0.72    1050    76.9     9369     993   2.299
Lovex D037.2 Heavy Pistol           41.2     11.0     0.72    1050    76.9     9369     993   2.299
Winchester 231                      34.2      6.5     0.42    1050   100.0    13659     616   2.130  ! Near Maximum !
Maxam CSB 2                         42.0      6.4     0.41    1050   100.0    13497     606   2.137  ! Near Maximum !
Norma R1                            49.0      6.2     0.40    1050   100.0    18283     559   2.049  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Vihtavuori N340                     40.0      6.6     0.43    1050   100.0    11784     684   2.184
Maxam CSB 1                         45.1      6.6     0.43    1050   100.0    13604     604   2.123  ! Near Maximum !
Lovex S030                          37.7      6.6     0.43    1050   100.0    12138     670   2.187
Vihtavuori N310                     39.2      5.7     0.37    1050   100.0    19798     534   2.002  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Alliant 2400                        46.8     11.1     0.72    1050    72.9     9218    1024   2.380
Vihtavuori N320                     41.1      6.0     0.39    1050   100.0    15147     579   2.090  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Vihtavuori N330                     38.9      6.3     0.41    1050   100.0    12768     627   2.144
Lovex S020                          37.6      6.5     0.42    1050   100.0    12084     665   2.174
Lovex S035                          44.7      6.9     0.45    1050   100.0    11403     707   2.198
Hodgdon H4227                       64.3     14.7     0.95    1050    57.8     9042     984   2.308
Vihtavuori 3N37                     38.9      7.5     0.49    1050    99.2    10379     814   2.236
Alliant POWER PISTOL                36.4      7.2     0.47    1050    92.8     9642     920   2.321
Vihtavuori N350                     40.7      7.4     0.48    1050    99.4    10525     798   2.223
IMR 4227                            63.4     14.5     0.94    1050    58.3     9298     977   2.298
Accurate No.2                       39.0      6.5     0.42    1050   100.0    11480     718   2.225
Lovex S040                          51.0     11.4     0.74    1050    73.4     9279     988   2.284
Lovex D063                          56.2     14.7     0.95    1050    56.4     9444     968   2.290
Ramshot Enforcer                    47.4     12.1     0.78    1050    73.3     8494    1055   2.388
Lovex D060                          58.0     13.6     0.88    1050    57.8     9761    1019   2.330
Accurate 5744                       56.7     13.6     0.88    1050    57.8     9761    1019   2.330
Vihtavuori N105 *C                  47.0      9.2     0.60    1050    90.3     8326     985   2.329
Lovex D037.1                        36.3      9.8     0.63    1050    83.3     9322     984   2.314
Accurate No.7                       36.6      9.8     0.63    1050    83.3     9322     984   2.314
Alliant BLUE DOT                    47.3      9.6     0.62    1050    82.6     9440     980   2.319
Vihtavuori 3N38                     45.2      9.2     0.60    1050    88.0     9716     933   2.297
Vihtavuori N32C Tin Star            63.1      7.9     0.51    1050   100.0    18471     539   2.038  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Alliant BULLSEYE                    34.1      5.6     0.37    1050   100.0    11386     706   2.211
IMR TrailBoss                       93.9      7.9     0.51    1050   100.0    17116     554   2.057  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Vihtavuori N110 *C                  59.3     12.6     0.81    1050    71.2     8241    1069   2.378
Lovex S011                          36.3      6.2     0.40    1050   100.0    14261     600   2.118  ! Near Maximum !
Accurate Solo 1250                  42.6      6.4     0.41    1050   100.0    13343     617   2.128  ! Near Maximum !

I also ran a Power Pistol table

Cartridge          : .44 S&W Special (SAAMI)
Bullet             : .430, 240, Hornady HP/XTP 44200
Useable Case Capaci: 27.101 grain H2O = 1.760 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.615 inch = 41.02 mm
Barrel Length      : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm
Powder             : Alliant POWER PISTOL

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-28.6   25     5.00    784     327    5724    582     80.6    3.109
-25.7   26     5.20    809     349    6005    612     82.0    3.014
-22.9   27     5.40    834     371    6301    643     83.3    2.926
-20.0   28     5.60    859     393    6611    674     84.6    2.843
-17.1   29     5.80    884     416    6936    705     85.8    2.765
-14.3   30     6.00    908     439    7274    736     86.9    2.691
-11.4   31     6.20    932     463    7627    767     88.0    2.622
-08.6   32     6.40    956     487    7993    797     89.1    2.557
-05.7   33     6.60    979     511    8373    828     90.1    2.495
-02.9   34     6.80   1002     535    8768    858     91.0    2.436
+00.0   35     7.00   1025     560    9176    888     91.9    2.380
+02.9   36     7.20   1048     585    9598    917     92.7    2.326
+05.7   37     7.40   1070     610   10034    946     93.5    2.276
+08.6   38     7.60   1092     636   10484    975     94.2    2.227
+11.4   39     7.80   1114     661   10948   1003     94.9    2.181
+14.3   40     8.00   1136     687   11427   1031     95.5    2.137

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba     35     7.00   1075     615   10352    913     96.8    2.212
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba     35     7.00    966     497    8081    835     84.7    2.521

[HiBC]

Its a mistake to assume 44 magnum rifles can safely handle more pressure than 44 magnum handguns.

It might vary,case to case, but a SBH,a Raging Bull, a Redhawk,etc may well take more pressure than your lever gun.

In part,there is only so much real estate and steel in a lever action.The tube mag layout and receiver size makes for slim barrel contour and small barrelshank.

In some cases, a sight dovetail is cut across the lever action barrel just about where pressure will peak.

Yes,a good,modern steel 92 clone is pretty strong.

But 454 Casull handguns are built in the same revolvers 44 Magnums are built on.

454 Casull pressures exceed what most lever actions are rated .

I know,there are 454 Casull lever guns. OK.

Convert one of Pancho Villa's carbines or use a toggle link lever action and you may be smiling around gun parts.

[SHR970]

You posted about the pressure overhead room available, but on rereading I see no allusions to any other consideration. My point was that the powders in the old data may have ceased appearing in 44 Special load manual data for reasons having nothing direct to do with the peak pressures normally seen with them.

Granted but from 15.5 to 36k psi is a very long haul especially with a powder as forgiving to be used in 9mm Major loads. Also there is plenty of buffer between the two cartridges considering the .12" difference in length cited in Speer with their plated rounds.

Shadow: for #7 it states that at 7.0g the charge is too small and at 12.5 is states I am close to max working pressure at a projected 13704psi

And with PP you have already admitted to exceeding 44 Sp. pressures or load data.

44 Special has been loaded hot since at least the 1930's. The data is available to guide you towards your velocity goal given careful loading and use in only modern firearms. If you have been in the game as long as you claim you should be able to hit the goal with what you have while preventing someone from using it is some weak top break POS.

As I have said I have at least two documented sources to work from. Yes the powder has been reformulated since then....but if you are using Lee#2 data it is just as old and just a repeat of everyone elses published data. Lymans has lots of loads that are as old or older; just look to see if pressure is even listed OR listed in CUP. That is the tell.

I ran the H110 in the simulation as well as the #7 with both powders it gave me a warning "Low burn rate! inconsistent combustion and increased error rate of simulation very likely."

And that is why we test it to prove or disprove the efficacy of the data and whether it meets our goals.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by HiBC

Its a mistake to assume 44 magnum rifles can safely handle more pressure than 44 magnum handguns.

It might vary,case to case, but a SBH,a Raging Bull, a Redhawk,etc may well take more pressure than your lever gun.

In part,there is only so much real estate and steel in a lever action.The tube mag layout and receiver size makes for slim barrel contour and small barrelshank.

In some cases, a sight dovetail is cut across the lever action barrel just about where pressure will peak.

Yes,a good,modern steel 92 clone is pretty strong.

But 454 Casull handguns are built in the same revolvers 44 Magnums are built on.

454 Casull pressures exceed what most lever actions are rated .

I know,there are 454 Casull lever guns. OK.

Convert one of Pancho Villa's carbines or use a toggle link lever action and you may be smiling around gun parts.

Just to clarify, when referencing pressure, I was talking 44spl pressures vs 44mag pressures. Not pressures in a lever guns vs revolver.

I was also hoping to see some better velocities in rifles vs pistol, but pressures were strictly related to pushing 44spl above 44spl levels in a 44mag chamber.

[Shadow9mm]

CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

Ok, Final load workup is done! Figured I would compile it for a clean read

Henry Big Boy Steel round barrel side gate, 20in barrel in 44mag / 44spl.

Goal was a hunting load that was just subsonic.

Starline 44spl brass
Hornady 240g XTP
Power Pistol Powder
CCI # 300 Small Pistol Primers
Listed Start of 6.6g
Listed max of 7.6g

Fired 5 rounds at each charge weight

6.6, avg 801, sd 28.38, es 75, hi 846, low 771
7.1, avg 867, sd 38.68, es 94, hi 902, low 808
7.6, avg 939, sd 31.44, es 73, hi 95, low 902
Going above max
8.1, avg 1034, sd 15.37, es 36, hi 1057, low 1021
8.2, avg 1055, sd 51.90, es 132, hi 1101, low 969
8.3, avg 1063, sd 43.67, es 107, hi 1101, low 994
8.4, avg 1095, sd 10.45, es 28, hi 1107, low 1079
8.5, avg 1114, sd 17.71, es 38, hi 1134, low 1086


Not sure what happened in the 8.2 and 8.3 loads with the HIGH es and sd. Same lot of primers, same container of powder. Charges were all weighed, not thrown.

[Unclenick]

Your high velocities track fairly well with the load level changes. The lows may just be where the primer happened to unseat the bullet a little further or the powder was thrown forward in the case (or both).

[Shadow9mm]

Interesting, the low shot was also the first shot from each string for 8.2 or 8.3. I was thinking possibly chronograph error, not straight over, or due to moving clouds.

Was planning to test 8.1, 8.2. 8.3 for accuracy, then fire 15 of that load over the chronograph to get a final velocity for the load.